## Facts

- Myrtle R. Brown attended a professional baseball game at Seals Stadium in San Francisco as a guest of friends.
- Seals Stadium had 18,601 seats, including about 5,000 screened seats behind home plate; most other seats (along first- and third-base lines) were unscreened.
- Tickets were sold by section, and patrons selected screened or unscreened seating when purchasing tickets.
- A friend bought tickets for an unscreened area near the first-base line; the game was already underway when Brown arrived.
- About an hour later, during a change of sides, Brown was struck by an object and seriously injured; the case proceeded on the assumption she was struck by a baseball entering the stands.
- Attendance was about 5,000, and there were many vacant seats in both screened and unscreened sections.
- The stadium owner had rented the facility for this game and did not control game conduct or players, nor set admission price or publicize the event.
- Brown testified she was unfamiliar with baseball and claimed she did not appreciate the danger of being struck while seated in an unscreened area.

## Issues

1. Whether a baseball stadium owner is negligent for a spectator’s injury from a ball in an unscreened section when the owner provides a substantial number of screened seats in the area of greatest danger and allows patrons to choose.
2. Whether a spectator who sits in an unscreened area, with screened seats reasonably available, assumes the inherent risk of being struck by a ball, barring recovery absent additional negligence.
3. Whether an order denying a motion for new trial is independently appealable.

## Decision

- The appeal from the order denying a new trial was dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order.
- The judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
- The directed verdict was proper because, on the plaintiff’s evidence, no reasonable trier of fact could find breach of duty by the stadium owner.
- The owner discharged its duty by providing a reasonable number of screened seats in the highest-risk area and making them available; Brown’s decision to sit in an unscreened area constituted assumption of risk for ordinary incidents of the game.

## Legal Principles

- A premises owner is not an insurer of patron safety; it must use ordinary care to maintain reasonably safe premises and warn of hidden dangers.
- In baseball spectator cases, the proprietor’s duty as to screening is limited: it is satisfied by providing a reasonable number of screened seats in the area of greatest danger (commonly behind home plate) for those who desire protection.
- The risk that balls may enter the stands is an open and obvious, ordinary incident of baseball; a spectator who chooses an unscreened seat when screened seating is reasonably available assumes that risk.
- A plaintiff’s claimed lack of familiarity with baseball does not convert an obvious risk into a hidden danger for purposes of imposing additional protective duties.
- Where material facts bearing on duty and assumed risk are not meaningfully disputed and no evidence supports breach, a directed verdict for the defendant is appropriate.

## Conclusion

The court held the stadium owner was not liable for injuries from a ball reaching an unscreened seating area because it provided ample screened seats in the most dangerous location and left spectators free to choose; by remaining in an unscreened section with screened seats available, the spectator assumed the ordinary risk of being struck.


Brown v. San Francisco Ball Club, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 2d 484, 222 P.2d 19 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)